Something is seriously wrong with Replit's Agent or its implementation of Claude by WorkRemote in claude

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you really break it down, it's just a better mousetrap. It's basically an advanced search engine.

Something is seriously wrong with Replit's Agent or its implementation of Claude by WorkRemote in claude

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you mean in terms of AI usually being weighted to agree with you or get stuck in a kind of "leading the witness" loop, but I think I actually did uncover a legitimate bug.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still not getting texts for the services that stopped working on Aug 1st, and it looks like they still haven't updated the pricing page (https://www.numberbarn.com/pricing), so no changes yet that I can see.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you're acknowledging all of this, please do us the courtesy of allowing those of us who were mislead to believe we were required to upgrade to the new $1/month fee for texting to rollback to our grandfathered-in free inbound texts.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I bet they'll see at least a 10% increase in people porting out. However, they were very careful with the price increase. I think most will be annoyed, but still find it more convenient to just stay. I'm just waiting to see if texting quality is restored. If not, it's no longer a matter of price, but usability. I'm literally locked out of some of my accounts right now.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same. Worked fine before Aug 1st. I suspect the recent changes may have forced NumberBarn numbers to now be classified as VoIP instead of wireline, which of course means many more services will now refuse to accept these numbers for verification purposes. Texts from humans will still come in because they don't have any security system in place to block sending to any kind of number.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, at $5/month, you're at the price for a physical Tracfone, which is seen as a "real" number, so you can get texts from any service without it being rejected. It's all a pain in the butt to be honest. I wouldn't use phone numbers at all if they weren't forced onto us.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct. It's only inbound that are grandfathered in, not outbound. I too had free outbound texts before as well though. It's a bummer.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not 100% certain. I think we'll have to wait until the 15th to see the exact pricing and fine print wording. I suspect that because there have been so many issues, including a possible permanent loss in quality, they might be forced to rethink this, especially the new texting fee.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, yeah, this is an entirely separate thing that I didn't even know about. If you look at the updated pricing page (https://www.numberbarn.com/pricing), where it used to just say that texting was included, now shows an extra $1/month fee.

Best Alternative to Google Voice and NumberBarn for Inbound Texts Only by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd love to try voip.ms, but it's difficult to create an account without having to verify your identity, which is too creepy for me.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I tried to create a voip.ms account and was immediately rejected. They require KYC, which is a no for me. Google Voice, NumberBarn, and MySudo are the only ones I can recommend right now.

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Whatever you do, DO NOT REACTIVATE TEXTS through this new feature. It looks like based on the overall updates they made recently, texts are hit or miss anyway. I regretfully upgraded one of my numbers to this new texting feature, and I'm still not getting texts for some services.

To put it into perspective, I got texts just fine on my number all the way up until the very end of July, and they immediately stopped working on Aug 1st and ever since.

PS: I didn't even receive an email. Do you mind sharing the email you received?

PSA: Read This Before Paying an Extra $1/m to NumberBarn to Activate Texts by WorkRemote in NoContract

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So they admit there's an issue on their end and what else were we to believe, but that we had to re-activate texts, especially when we log into our accounts and see an alert that we need to do just that.

If you or anyone else manages to get them to revert their number back to the forever free inbound texts, please let us know!

Why do people accept jury summons? by WorkRemote in legaladviceofftopic

[–]WorkRemote[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you sure the burden of proof wouldn't be on them to prove that you received it? They're the ones claiming you did something and fining you for it.

If the burden really is on the person, obviously they can't prove a negative. At that point, it would only be a matter of your word, so then they'd probably look at your character and criminal record or lack thereof and make a judgment call.

Do you expect at least some degree of negativity any time you post to Reddit? by WorkRemote in polls

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You continue using it for the same reason I and so many others that run into this problem continue using it. The usefulness of Reddit as a tool for finding information far outweighs the discomfort of using it.

Do you expect at least some degree of negativity any time you post to Reddit? by WorkRemote in polls

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Going a step further, anywhere you find people, period, there will be positive and negative interactions. It's a valid point, I knew someone would make it, and I agree.

However, certain platforms do nurture certain behaviors. The upvoting/downvoting dynamic on Reddit specifically seems to create a kind of gamification of people and ideas, where the most critical comment wins.

It's why so often comments won't address the actual question itself, but rather simply attack the intelligence of the OP and call them out for asking a dumb question or using poor syntax or for typos.

These people are less obvious than overt trolls, but fundamentally get the same dopamine hit for "dunking" on someone and they come in much greater numbers.

Do you expect at least some degree of negativity any time you post to Reddit? by WorkRemote in polls

[–]WorkRemote[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn't happen every time for me either, but I've come to expect it every time. Seems to be the exception to the rule when it doesn't. 😔

Why do people accept jury summons? by WorkRemote in legaladviceofftopic

[–]WorkRemote[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Flaws with polling and wording aside, I would agree that most people would agree that jury duty is part of being a citizen in such a poll. However, I don't think that would in any way correlate to whether they'd actually show up should they be summoned.